Defend racism and eugenics

>Studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene between ethnic groups:[32][33] of the participants, 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.

Which is funny considering how little of a military culture and how powerful an Empire they built compared to African Americans. It's almost as if trade routes played a massive role.

Also, checked.

You're right. I literally cant.

Race is a meme, it's definition is relative to ones culture. Ethnicity on the other hand is a real thing.

Eugenics is literally the default form of reproduction of all life.

No, ethnicity is the meme. See: United States.

>implying

It would be utterly bizarre if the races had somehow evolved to have identical average IQs, despite evolving in very different environments and facing very different selection pressures. It simply must be genetic.

>race is culture
>ethnicity is objective
you've mixed it up

IQ is frankly a joke, there's hardly an scientific basis to it and we hardly understand what "intelligence" is even without trying to measure it
In the future people will laugh at how we tried to judge intelligence by asking people to sort colours and answer puzzles

NIIIIIIIIIIIIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERSSSSSSS

Prove me wrong.

> protip: you cant

>Defend racism and eugenics
Two different things

>racism
because it's true

>eugenics
I guess you could defend it through some kind of utilitarian argument, but I'm myself anti-eugenics.

dond freget that Niger is poor country so they bad and nothoman

Racial Eugenics can't be ethically defended imo, however there is some argument for not passing on debilitating diseases like Cystic Fibrosis or Downs Syndrome, if you have no respect for individuals with said diseases' autonomy or personhood.

I don't personally agree, but that is the argument.

have you seen videos of those braindead sisters on facebook though? they're hardly sentient

personally I don't think it's morally fair to bring something like that into life if it's probably suffering every moment of it

>implying you can objectively measure intelligence

>Racial Eugenics can't be ethically defended imo
What if you instate "color-blind" eugenics policies (IQ-based for instance) which end up disproportionately targeting a certain ethnic group (due to it having lower average IQ). Would you then be okay with it?

>it's a redditor shows off his ignorance episode

can you even disprove what was said

>No, because it is the direct change of genes rather than the selective breeding of them.
What?

There exists an entire field of psychology dedicated at quantifying intelligence. Google "psychometrics" and educate yourself you moronic faggot.

Yeah, it's not fair. But I don't know if that was even detected in utero (honestly I don't know the story behind it), and they're born now and unlikely to breed.

It's more about allowing downs syndrome people to have kids and the like. Once a disabled person is born, legally there's not much you can do.

That doesn't make it objective you fucking brainlet

Racism is a terrible, terrible thing. To be completely prejudice towards an entire race is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But don't mistake me for some blind preacher of multi-culturalism, because I have highly racist ideals towards certain people. In my mind, not all black people are niggers just the same as not all Jewish people are money grubbing rats. Obama for example, is not a nigger, even though I completely disagree with his policies and ideologies, but there is no denying that he is a respectable black man. Gangsters in the 'hood'? Africans who cut their penises off? Niggers one and the same.

Eugenics in my mind is one of the most humane ways of dealing with the misfortuned who aren't gifted with what is scientifically proven to be a normal, disease free life. Where we draw the line and what ethnicity's are 'allowed' to breed, we should leave to pure science, limiting hereditary disease as much as possible.

Just my thoughts.

You're not just selecting who can breed

You're taking the DNA of the person who is going to breed to the laboratory and modifying it

>reproduction should be highly regulated and directed by a government agency
But what do you do with people who break the rules and have an "unlicensed" child? Do you abort/murder the child? Seize them and have them placed in a state orphanage?
Or do you go the half assed route and just make it a tax or another layer of bureaucracy that makes life a giant headache for law-abiding property owners and suppresses the birthrates of precisely the segment of your population who you want to be breeding?

>some random pseudo-science is a way of objectively mesuring intelligence
kek

Well sure no science is objective you fucking moron, heck quantum mechanics is not objective, doesn't detract from its validity.

You must be some low IQ liberal fart student.

>If I call it pseudo-science it must be pseudo-science!
How does it feel to be a flat earther?

>Different races objectively have different average levels of intelligence,

But IQ is an imperfect measure in the first place, so I wouldn't support it anyway, as there are more kinds of intelligence than simple spacial perception and pattern recognition. It'd be too difficult to objectively not allow the unintelligent to breed.

Besides, I thought most people on Veeky Forums thought all women were utterly stupid. Wouldn't that mean that no breeding could take place at all (unless I'm very much mistaken science hasn't progressed to the point where we can breed without both sexes being present, beyond the experimental stage).

[spoiler] Psychology is pseudo science [/spoiler]

preach it brothas

I think it's funny you always have perfectly healthy normal people who come from privileged backgrounds arguing how eugenics is the ultimate evil but then you have guys like hotwheels from 8ch or hardcore schizophrenics arguing for eugenics.

Just throwing it out there.

...

>Objectively
What is that even supposed to mean in this context? But yes, all the statistical evidence accumulated during the previous 100 years points towards that conclusion. Even if it hurts your precious fee fees.

>But IQ is an imperfect measure in the first place
No it's not. Jesus why do plebs feel entitled to talk about something they know nothing about? It's as if you said "well you know the theory of evolution is just a theory, so it's not credible". That's your current level of retardation. I don't blame you though because you've been insulated from the current state of IQ research by a dishonest mainstream media.

>as there are more kinds of intelligence than simple spacial perception and pattern recognition.
There's only one intelligence measure called "g" which is at the core of all other kinds of intelligences.

I bet you also believe in the nonsense Freud shat out

for it to be a science it needs to be able to demonstrate the mechanisms behind the phenomenon

psychology literally just takes data from studies and makes conclusions that come purely from this and other assumptions that were demonstrated in a similar way

real sciences such as physics or biology are instruments and measurements as their data and manage to demonstrate the mechanisms with objective tools, such as maths or chemical equations

A lot of it is, but unsurprisingly psychometrics is the most rigorous field of psychology, and suffers from no problems of replicability. It can be considered a science.

not that funny, considering that the former were never forced to walk in the shoes of the latter, and that the latter would've probably turned out alright were they a result of eugenics program

>a """science""" that uses data issued from discussion
no thanks, you can keep your social """sciences"""

>I bet you also believe in the nonsense Freud shat out
No, that was garbage.

I bet you had never heard of the word "psychometrics" before you read it in this thread. That's because you're an ignorant moron, and you should educate yourself before posting again.

HEY MORONS ITT, READ THIS BEFORE POSTING PLEASE. It's a short primer on psychometrics. You can skip the race stuff in the beginning although I recommend you read it too:

jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

The point was to refute what was presumably your claim that
>>Different races objectively have different average levels of intelligence,
You fucking idiot, it didn't have anything to do with the usefulness of subjective measurements. For them to have objectively different average levels of intelligence their would have to be an objective measure of intelligence.

Yeah.

I think the origin of this particular debate that has been circling on Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums is that IQ is somehow supposed to indicate average 'intelligence' and that this intelligence somehow indicates the ability to perform in reality around others in competition with others.

How. Only if performance were objective and characteristics were fascist-like graded on what your mental state of mind and characteristics should be.

The reality of the situation is that most races like Africans haven't been exposed to the same level of civilization as other races like Asians and Caucasians. As a result, their educational systems are less modern or up to date or have been lacking in speed with the amount that Africans can keep up. This does not indicate a lack of intelligence, this is simply a lack of money or resources to garner money.

Case-in-point: Saudi Arabia has more oil reserves than Iraq. Saudi Arabia's educational system is much better than Iraq's. Don't ask me why it works out this way because the answer is simple: as money spreads its tentacles throughout society, education in universities follows suit. It is a necessary evil, admittedly. However, it doesn't spread out equally. And the lack of practicality of this knowledge is a bit frightening as well, due to the fact that most theoretical knowledge is only applicable if you have connections to line up a job after school, most of the time.

the latter wouldn't have turned out at all you moron. Other people would have turned uot right instead of them turning out wrong.

okay, I stand corrected about the consequence of eugenics program and whom it'd affect
but my point still stands

>Saudi Arabia's educational system is much better than Iraq's.
Ksa's education system is notoriously bad even by gulf states standards, 85% of the curriculum is just study of the Koran, KSA's elites send their children to primary school in Switzerland.

was fine up until part 7

the author claims that IQ can measure intelligence but hasn't even defined it

we don't even scientifically understand intelligence completely yet, and we haven't scientifically proven what IQ even measures

what's most likely is intelligence is divided into certain categories and iq probably only measures certain parts of these

as well, there is no proper scientific demonstration here because all data comes from "studies" thus just examples which will never be able to explain the core theory of intelligence which is probably too complex for us to understand yet

Jews hate white people and want our enslavement.

They also push anti-racism and anti-eugenics.

Coincidence? I think not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

The worst thing is that you probably think you're smart

Storm niggers are disengenious if only because a person living in a tard house drooling all day in Brooklyn scoring 75 on an IQ test and a Khoisan scoring a 69 while still hunting and gathering day to day means that IQ tests something other than general intelligence.

ok but can you explain the flynn effect if you IQ tests are really an objective way of mesuring intelligence?

for a start, you haven't even defined it, but I'm sure you'll link it to some kind of critical thinking or problem solving idea

regardless, do you really believe people today are really more intelligent than people 100 years ago?
if that's the case, the previous article is false since it linked genetics to intelligence, and genetic variation of such a scale in 100 years is impossible

>ok but can you explain the flynn effect if you IQ tests are really an objective way of mesuring intelligence?
Well there are multiple hypotheses for explaining the Flynn effect.

>regardless, do you really believe people today are really more intelligent than people 100 years ago?
No, not even Flynn believes that. You know that if you'd heard of the Flynn effect from the scientific literature and not from reddit.

Anyways, Flynn's explanation (and I think it is a good explanation), is that the world in which westerners lived in the early 20th century was far less complex and abstract than the world they lived in the late 20th century. The increase in abstraction of society has led westerners to learn how to view things more abstractly, which in turn caused them to score higher on some (but not all) of problems of IQ tests.

However, it's probably not a real increase in intelligence, because the smartest have not become "smarter". Rather, the bulk of the left side of the bell curve has become "smarter".

Also it should be noted that the Flynn effect stopped in the west during the 80s, and IQ is now actually declining due to immigration.

Anyways, once again you should really google it, it's all there on the internets user.

so if the increase of IQ does not correlate to the increase of intelligence, rather people think in a different way, how can one say IQ really measures intelligence?

and why are you telling me to google this stuff when I clearly have since I'm the one bringing it up

regardless, it's clearly impossible these 3 things you support to co exist:
>Intelligence is genetic
>IQ is a legitimate way to mesure intelligence
>IQ has increased significantly in a short duration (genetically speaking)

I believe 2 of these are correct but I think you can understand it's not possible for the 3 to exist.

Fucking moron

>Height is genetic
>Using a tape measurer is a legitimate way to measure height
>Height has increased significantly in a short duration (genetically speaking)

I guess we can't actually determine the heights of human beings.

Or rather
>The recorded height using tape measurers has increased significantly in a short duration

height isn't purely genetic though

And?

>tfw to intelligent for discourse without petty insults

the problem with your strawman is we have a universally accepted definition for height, it's the distance of a person from the top of their head to the bottom of their feet when they are standing straight on their heels

no such definition exists for intelligence because we don't understand it yet, and beyond the pseudo science you've been linking to the scientific understanding of intelligence is very limited

the best we've achieved is knowing what parts of the brain are active when you think

The only difference with my analogy (not strawman) is that the measure of height is more straightforward than that of intelligence. However, the definition of intelligence as the "g" factor has been arrived at through scientific methods and is the most accurate one we have so far. For all its imperfections it nevertheless has numerous applications and a high predictive power in many different outcomes such as educational or professional outcomes. You cannot dismiss simply because you cannot understand it implicitly.

It is true that it is arrived at indirectly, but that doesn't detract from its validity, just because you say so.

Look kid you're arguing against against a huge body of scientific knowledge. You're a flat earther.

>you cannot understand it implicitly.
you cannot understand it intuitively*

Eugenics? No. No I can't really defend that. Uninterested in a higher power controlling births and genetics etc etc
Racism? Yes. Easily. But it depends on what your definition of what racism actually is. To quote Thomas Sowell, racism is like ketchup it can be smothered over anything. But as a concept it was designed that way. It's used routinely as a projection by people.
People like myself, have routinely expressed that we don't hate anyone. However I have in group preference for people of my own ethnicity (Europeans) And fail to see exactly why this is a bad thing. If this preference didn't exist, and there was no need to have government legislation consistently promoting and enforcing different ethnicities and their cultures then:
1) Enclaves wouldn't exist and multi ethnic societies would function as they were developed. Look at the downfall of Sweden in the last few years.
2)Nations in East Asia wouldn't advocate for such intense immigration and cultural control.

racism: who cares
eugenics: there is almost nothing more utilitarian than ensuring happiness of the billions/trillions of people yet to exist by improving their genetic base.

Is everyman entitled to who his own authority?
Suppose that we say all men are equal and thus we ought to enforce this truth.
But what if some men do not wish to live this way?
Can we force is upon them?
In what way can be consistent in saying "You must live by our ways but you may not live by your own way." Isn't this also the only problem people have with racists? They live their own racist way?
Who's to say such matters are objectively defined?
If a man wishes to be racist, on what authority can you say "You are not allowed to live this way."
Holding racist views and peacefully and democratically pushing racially biased opinions isn't harming anyone.
Also, what if a man seeks violence in the same way you or I seek non-violence?
Do we prevent a pain to us by prescribing a pain to another (to the man who wishes violence upon us done)?

>you can't

The Nordic peoples are aesthetically the most pleasing.
>beauty is subjective
Am I not entitled to my subjective opinion and as well to its defense and promulgation in this democratic society?
Or would you strip me of my own biological imperative as well my as rational one too?

It seems as thought "racism" as it is colloquially is just a part of reality, to deny it is as delusional as denying the Sun is bright .

In the end, the denial of my opinion is the denial of your own right to your opinion, you would descend into a mentality of denying your own truths, and in this way how can you argue anything?

Europe made European Culture and formed Western Civilization.
Say it's all about environment, well, in the end its a European world, and how cruel would it be to make everyone else live by European standards.
If Europe is on top, then let only the Europeans survive, this is the only moral conclusion which can be reconciled with both morality and our biology.

>inb4 le /pol/ opinion

I believe the reason you get so much opposition to a definite measure of the nature of intelligence is because of the concepts it supports. Eugenics is literally not that far away from stating intelligence is genetically determined or objectively definable. I think you would do better to say that people are different, have different learning speeds, have different learning behavior, develop some intense pedagogical lines of society, and leave it at that. Stop focusing on an impersonal relationship with those being taught and trying to corral them into little sections, and instead realize it is these sections which are not infallible, and result in many different sorts of people basing their idea of intelligence on behavior, especially since places like Harvard just teach you how to act, aside from the terminology used in various professions. What has happened in academia can just be streamlined more efficiently with the application of an IQ basis for measuring intelligence.

>a huge body of scientific knowledge
you mean speculation at best and pseudo science at worst

the "g factor" remains uknown hence its name, the definition of it is basically "what we think is intelligence"

you're just like the people in the earlier years of science who accepted random theories as fact because there seemed to be some kind of rational logic backed by some loose link with reality

Again, the involvement of proper science and scientific measurement in all this is minimal and it's barely a step above sociology, so don't call it science

>You're taking the DNA of the person who is going to breed to the laboratory and modifying it

so basically everyone could then breed iq200 blue eyes blond haired people? what if the person has no money for that what then? also wouldn't it be disadvantageous and unfair to the rest of society? I mean even Star Trek was against GE

>Europe is on top, then let only the Europeans survive, this is the only moral conclusion which can be reconciled with both morality and our biology.
Anyone with an iq in the upper 90s and above or just Europeans?

Those with blue eyes, live, those without, die.
>inb4 muh Mediterraneans

>40yearsinthefuture.png
>everybody edits their kids genes so that they have blonde hair and blue eyes
hmmmm yes

>Holding racist views and peacefully and democratically pushing racially biased opinions isn't harming anyone.
Racists in modern times advocate for things without saying them openly, like they did before. Now they just imply.
"Let's have a 100% white country", "Let's self-determine"
The only way this can work in real life is if violence happens and people's agency is undermined. In other words, people would have to be harmed.

Eugenics is scientifically outdated and won't work. Can't defend that.

Racism on the other hand. Depends. If you base race around intelligence genes then yes, you can defend racism. If you base it around external coloration, then you can't, because you are by definition not basing it around intelligence.

If you really insist on using external, mechanistically unrelated markers to determine intelligence by inferring probabilistically then:

Pic related is what you get in terms of racial hierarchy. Asians have an IQ of about 107, while whites are about 99-98. And so basically the race gaps are about 10 points.

I speculate some groups will never make up those gaps and some will. Hispanics, Native Americans will most likely shorten them. Southeast Asians will for sure.
Blacks are doubtful.
Whites will never reach Asians, because whites have already maxed out, they live basically perfect lives for a high IQ, have been affected by the Flynn effect and get outscored by Chinese and Mongolians on tests whites have created.

That's just a transitionnal stage. Eventually technology evolves to make those operations affordable.

Fake quotes.

Actually the obsession goes the other way. The white race has been obsessed with Jews for a long time now, and still is.

Jews are actually smarter than us and if you don't hate Asians, then you should hate Jews either.

so you are admitting that some genes are better than others

once you have made this point, racism becomes sort of self evident

IQ is a euphemism for "how smart are they compared with Western European whites" and the answer for the majority of races is quite clearly "they are of inferior intelligence".

Every single black country is absolutely fucked, every single white country is fine. There HAS to be something to this.

no it doesn't because races are based on gene frequencies
the black race has pretty much all the genes the white race has
yes, you can still be a retarded racist and look at skin color, but a smart 'racist' would look at genes, which really doesn't exclude any 'classical race'
it's only self evident if you have a racialist agenda

>strawman
>I'm not a racist but I know exactly how they think how they determine what should be done and they are necessarily violent
into the trash it goes.
>people would have to be harmed
Actually, creating a white ethno-state is as simple as imposing immigration laws on Svalbard or colonizing a small part of Antarctica, or participating in Eugenics on Pitcairn Isle.
Eugenics are also totally peaceful, encourage some people to reproduce and discourage others.
You're saying they will reach a point where they can not progress, evolution is slow, hence genetic change takes time.
All we have to do is play the numbers, its entirely peaceful.
Now how about you stop being a retarded low IQ cuck by equating peaceful genetic planning with full le 'forteen ate-ee-ate, seg hell'.

Worse than fucking CNN tier brainwashing.

On the other hand, all opinions lead to violence, I bet your idea of stopping these racists would be to destroy people whose opinions lead to violence, in this case you can not criticize them for employing violence as bad as you are doing the same thing.
You must either toss out the term "opinion" and enter the realm of objective truth, or concede the point and let men live their lives as they wish, uninhibited. If they refuse to live like you or think and act in a way you deem moral, well, tough beans, you've surrendered your voice on the 'alter of equality'.
Honestly, if you aren't a racist, kys.
Its actually not outdated and can still work.
Promote healthy European genes and discourage non-European genes (in terms of reproduction of course).
Scandiavians live, non-Scandis Die.
80% and one drop rule apply.
Aesthetics, culture, heritage, and fitness are the imperative.
Racism is the intelligent, rational, honest, winner's game.
>disregarding the fact that Asian countries score higher than Western European countries
This is also the ad-hom fallacy you're committing because you are saying because**cont

cont.** Western Whites created the test they are inordinately favored, but the universe isn't subjective, math isn't subjective, it isn't different for some than for others.
Also the fallacy specifically lies in the fact your only evidence for it being non-objective or being biased (the IQ test) is that it was made by Western Whites. This might be used to discredit anything (hence why it's a fallacy because it isn't a rational criticism). One might easily discredit Maths by saying that all mathematicians are just biased in Maths and when they succeed where others fail, (for instance Ramanujan since he had no formal schooling) you could say "Well, its biased in their favor because they have a knack for it." this doesn't make math or math tests less objective.
Therefore Whites having a knack for IQ tests doesn't make the test less objective or IQ for that matter.
Find a flaw.

Why is black doubtful according to this graph? There's much less of a gap between Hispanics, natives, and blacks.